FRONTIERS OF ZOOLOGYDale A. Drinnon has been a researcher in the field of Cryptozoology for the past 30+ years and has corresponded with Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson. He has a degree in Anthropology from Indiana University and is a freelance artist and writer. Motto: "I would rather be right and entirely alone than wrong in the company with all the rest of the world"--Ambroise Pare', "the father of modern surgery", in his refutation of fake unicorn horns.

A Different Face For Neanderthals

He has written a book called “Them and Us”, in which he advances the hypothesis that Neanderthals were:

•Very different looking from most modern representations – much uglier, hairier, and far less human-like.•That they were brutal, intelligent, tool-using predators, who preyed upon modern man in the areas where they came in contact, specifically, the Levant.•That being the prey of Neanderthals was the most important factor in human evolution, and that it was responsible for the flowering of art and sculpture, the technological innovations in the tool making industry, perhaps even the flowering of language – all of which happened around 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.•And not only that, it was responsible for the evolution of the human body type, including features that distinguish us from other apes, such as decreased hairiness, the development of a prominent and protruding nose, different body posture and gait, etc.•Finally, he lists a whole range of human behavioral traits, such as preference for symmetrical faces, fear of the dark, abominable snowman myths across various cultures, etc. as some sort of racial memory of Neanderthals, whom we fear and despise, because they preyed upon us.

The author seems to have no formal qualifications in biology or paleo-anthropology, and is self-taught. That is in itself not necessarily to be counted against the possible validity of the theory.

Neanderthals were not the gentle, almost-human creatures portrayed in the media over the last 150 years. New Australian research reveals they were aggressive, powerful and terrifying carnivores—ruthless and efficient apex predators, who hunted, raped and ate early humans for over 50,000 years. The Neanderthal’s daily diet of nearly 2 kg of meat—the equivalent of 16 Quarter Pounders—included human flesh.

Based on the research, Australian independent scholar Danny Vendramini has developed “Neanderthal predation theory”, which argues that the evolution of modern humans— including our unique physiology, sexuality and human nature—is the result of a reaction to this systematic long-term sexual predation and cannibalism by Eurasian Neanderthals...

Now whether or not ALL of the theory is true, I am quite willing to concede several of Danny Vandramini's points, in particular when he says that there must have been some obvious visual differences between Neanderthals and the ancestors of Modern Man which kept them from regular, usual sexual interaction. I have reasons of my own tio believe that they were normally hairy all over and thus resembled his reconstructions. And I will go so far as to say that there is something spectacularly different with the structure of Neanderthaler's eye sockets and that the shape could indicate an adaptation to stronger night vision. That much might be speculative, but the other points about Neanderthal's heightened sense of smell and superhuman strength are not mere speculation: their fossils show the indications of those points quite definitely.

So as far as the first major point goes, that of the physical appearance of Neanderthals, I see no major objections as to why that should not be acceptable from a scientific point of view. As far as reconstructions go, we are talking what I refer to as "Upholstery", and that part does not preserve on fossils. I have some interesting comparisons to show on this subject for a future blog. Fot the time being I am going to put up Danny's theory and let that stand on its own. I do not need to discuss ALL of the points beyond that because ALL that I am interested in at this point is the matter of the reconstructions themselves.

Neanderthal reconstruction courtesy of themandus.orgPhotographs from the site themandus used for review purposes only and should not be construed as indicating that site endorses this one, or even necessarily the reverse.

58 comments:

Well since they could interbreed with modern humans that sort of rules out anything too different. Especially visually, humans tend to shun and avoid the different.

And his lack on knowledge on he subject does rule this out as anything but whimsy. Neanderthals were not superhumanly strong, modern humans are just weak for apes. How about doing some actual scientific research before posting things.

The degree to which we demonstrably did breed with them stll remains largely a matter of opinion. Twenty years ago the majority opinion would have been "we absorbed them completely and that is why they are gone as a species". Ten years ago the penduluum had swung the other way and the majority opinion was "We obviously did not and could not have interbred" and now there is a vocal minority opinion that says "probably there was a little intermixing going on after all."

Which is a good deal different than the way you put it. Actually, the big problem is how the two types spent several tens of thousands of years together in the Mideast before modern Homo sapiens entered Europe and neither one appreciably intermingled with the other. That is something central to the "Themandus" theory and it otherwise is something of a quandry.

By definition, anything stronger than a human is superhumanly strong. You have just negated your own statement. And Neanderthals were uncommonly strong in the structure of their muscular, not only as compared with us but also to some extent when compared to other early humans. The Turkana boy's skeleton is once again attenuated and fragile by comparison, although the long bones are a good deal sturdier than in modern man.

All theories begin pretty much as flights of fancy. In this case we do have some valid questions raised at this the introductory level only. Whether the sequel of the theory turns out to hold any water is not the question at this point.

I hope you don't mind if I link you to a Museom of Hoaxes forum thread concerning the same matter: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/10601/The thread is over 19 pages long, but reading just the first couple of pages should be enough. I think they provide some good points and counterpoints for the theory, stressing on the matter that there are certainly no actual evidence to suggest that Vendraminis view on the matter is correct. It's an interesting read, atleast in places.

Personally I'm doubtful of the validity of this man, his theory, his site and his books.

I do very much resent the fact that you are holding this site responsible for a theory advanced by another party and plainly marked as the theories of another party. I assume you are going to hold newspapers personally responsible for the content of the news items they are reporting.

This item was posted here as a news itenm of possible interest to the readers of this blog. And if you think that makes me personally responsible for creating a hoax, then I find your attitude deplorable and your site to be willfully misrepresenting the truth. And in which case and under those circumstances I shall sue your site to take the defamitory link down.Once again, if you have a complaint against the originator of the theory, lay that complaint against the originator of the theory. Your targeting this blog because you disagree with a news item reported on at this blog is unethical and misguided.Dale A. Drinnon, Blog Owner

I have checked out the message string and it is not offensive. However if you SHOULD post anything anywhere saying "Frontiers of Zoology is promulgating a Hoax by posting about this theory" that WOULD be offensive and I would still petition to have the statement removed. That is what I thought you were sayinfg when you said you were posting to a "Museum of Hoaxes"

I have no problem with people discussing things, I am in fact all for it. I get extermely touchy about defamatory remarks. And I go after slurs against my reputation and personal insults with a vengeance.So far, I see neither on your message board. But if I should hearanything about this material being "a Hoax" again you are going to be in trouble. A hoax is something deliberately designed to deceive others: the author of this theory is not deliberately deceiving anyone. He simply has an alternative point of view. And I am defending his right to have an alternative point of view. And even if his theory is wrong, that does not make it a hoax. That would be a different category again.

An example of a hoax would be a Christian Minister without any real faith who gets up and pretends to preach the Bible. In that case, he would not believe in the truth of what he was saying and he would be making a deliberate attempt to deceive his flock by doing so. The difference is in the malice intended and malice aforethought. Merely holding a point of view that is different to a standard point of view does not make it a hoax, and any number of wrong beliefs are held by people who truly believe in them.When those people speak of their beliefs, they are not hoaxers. You can be wrong and still be sincere. And you can actually be right but insincere. That is what makes the difference.

Simply because a matter is controversial that does not make it an attempt at deception. And it is the deception which is offensive, not the idea which it expresses.

IMHO, the authors of the "Thunderbird Photo" at Tombstone, Arizona were deliberately manufacturing a hoax with deliberate attempt to deceive. And they probably thought of it as a joke. That hoax and that joke should not be construed as "Disproving" the possible existance of large birds being called Thunderbirds. This 'themorus'theory is not a joke and it is not being advanced as an attempt to deceive anyone. Are we clear on that point now?

To me, it really does paint an epic picture of sapien history. However, the guy is a filmmaker and scriptwriter, so I'm willing to bet the presumptions are dramatized. Here are a couple points I want to bring to the table.

-Why the heck are they black? Eumelanin reduces vitamin D photosynthesis. And if they had vitamin C photosynthesis, having black skin in a cold, dark environment while eating only meat? They would most certainly all have scurvy and weak bones. Black sapiens already deal with vit. D deficiencies enough.

-This theory does point out a few things about sexuality. For instance, many of our closest relatives and not so uptight about privacy and jealousy and fear around sex. This could be socialized on our part. However, when looking at Bonobos, who have a social structure based on sex and matriarchy, rather than power, it makes us seem very uptight in comparison.

-Also, the fear of the dark? This could be common in some other creatures, but I mean, how many mammals thrive in the dark? Yet then we come out so distinctly freaked out by it. Could be mixes of this guy's explaination to a certain extent with other night-predator theories.

-Why is it that human males have such a strong disconnect between hemishperes in the brain, and is so easily damaged later, and THEN treat males with much more emotional neglect until recent movements? I mean, if this guy's idea is correct,Sapien males would be incapable of functioning because of the massive amount of PTSD and other trauma disorders. The only way to survive would be to emotionally detach. And given that many males aren't THAT inherently different from females, and often become different from socialization, it would make sense if Sapiens were comparatively peaceful, and mentally traumatized into power-hungry states.

but that's only my two cents. I've done a lot of studying on my own in anthropology and in masculinity, but I won't claim an anthropologist title.

That might be a Freudian thing on Danny Vendramini's part. According to him, Neanderthals were cannibals, and they stole and raped our women. So black skin probably seemed to be a good fit in his white mind. Old stereotypes die hard.

Vendramini is making several loosely related claims, of which one alone is not suppported by any sort of evidence i.e. the claim of SQ hominids punk-eeking their way into Cro-Magnonhood. For a very different look at the same data without the evolutionist interpretation:

Since ALL we are concerned with here is whether the Themandus scenario is a valid hypothesis, the matter of the Cromagnon origins is actually immaterial. If you are saying that everything other than the CM origins is supported by at least some evidence, well then, that is all we needed to know.

Why assume that natural life is whire skinned? I think that is more narrow minded and stereotypical of racism. It only makes sense seeing that most primates boast dark colored skin to combat the sun radiation.

Oh, and also, the introduction of art and music are a little different.

For instance, Music is actually processed in the brain as language. Certain keys are associated with certain emotional states. Basically, this is a side-effect of nonverbal communication that comes with vocal communication.

For instance, if someone says "I'm doing well" in a tone similar to a major chord, it says they are in a good mood. If this were, however, a minor or diminished chord, it changes the meaning entirely, and you realize they are being sarcastic and do not feel well.

I have an agreement with Danny Vendramini to post this here, but I try to take a neutral stance on the subject. I DO see where the theory has its merits, especially since the Neanderthals' sensory apparatus must have differed radically from the rest of us, based on the disproportionate cavities for the nose and eye sockets. I can well believe they must have had nocturnal adaptations frm those facts alone, and those are some real anatomical considerations that anybody can verify by checking the fossils. At the same time Danny's presentation is highly dramatised, yes. But then anything else represented in the popular media is similarly highly dramatised, down to evil anthropomorphic cartoon germs and scrubbing bubbles (or whatever) And any of the popular Cryptozoology presentations made for TV are also highly exaggerated for dramatic impact. Even "Cute little animals" nature shows are highly scripted and arranged to maximize emotional impact on the viewers. So I'd say, yes Danny's claims look a little extreme and the reality, however close it would be to this theory, would no doubt not be so extreme as the advertisement made it seem. That does not mean the claims are necessarily false because they are dramatised. And by the same token, we can take the advertised claims oof any product represented on television commercials and show them to be ridiculous caracatures much in the same manner as you have done with this theory in this comment. But merely because the caricatured preentation is unreal does not mean necessarily that the claims made are false.The viewer has just got to consider the language of the media.

In order to adapt to ice age europe any being would have fur in order to survive. If your a meateater you better have good nightvision. You have to e strong in order to take down prey. You have be able to hunt in packs like wolves. You have to have some way to communicate and also have some kind of weaponary to catch fast prey. So I think the neanderthals looked quite different then we have imagined. I think they acted more in line as wolves!

Art and Music were evidently both established in Subsaharan Africa well back into the Neanderthal age, a hundred thousand years ago and more: the evidence of this that has lasted is just very fragmentary, some scratches on rocks and some possible bone flutes. The ideas migrated out of Africa at whatever time the OOA migrations took place.I do not see the origins of art and music as being arguments especially relevant to the overall presentation, they are more or less red herrings.

I will grant you one thing: it is not really a case of "Them or Us": we have two completely different sets of adaptations, so we are not in direct competition for the same niche. And if the Neanderthals were cannibals that does not mean they were out to do away with all of us: that is not a natural ecological situation, either. Just because lynxes eat hares or lions eat antilopes does not mean they are cases of "Them or us" either-the populations rise and fall with the numbers of predators or the abundance of prey. A predator will ordinarily never eat its prey to extinction, unless we are talking about Homo sapiens(Linnean binomial tip: genus name capitalised, species name small). So that is also a part of the theory that is being overly dramatic. My point is that as far as we can tell, the parts of the theory that can be told by looking at the Neanderthal fossils themselves seem to be true. Most of the behavioral statements beyond that point are deductions and inferrances which might or might not be true and might or might not be true in different degrees for different spredictions made by the theory. That does not negate other parts of the theory that are made on a sounder basis, such as the anatomical statements. And personally I tend to believe in the part where Danny says they had apelike faces and hair-covered bodies, and hence resembled Bigfoot in life. That corresponds to my own findings where Bigfoot can leave Neanderthal tracks, have hair covered bodies where the hair tests out to be about as closely related to us as Neandertals, and the occasional reports of bones and teeth attributed to Bigfoot which correspond to Neanderthal anatomy.

as far as the reports go, the creatures that are probable Neanderthals are "Sunburt" looking, ordinarily dark brown or even reddish and not black. Now you have put your finger on a few aspects of Danny's theory I DON'T like: the Neanderthals are assumed to be rapists and assumed to be Blacks. As you said, that is likely to be a racist thing. I imagine that our ancestors were more likely to rape Neanderwomen than their ancestors were prone to raping ours, and as far as the stories go, it is more often a case of "They" are looking for permanent mates rather than a few laghs overnight. When the males kidnap human females, the females in question are generally said to become attached to their Neanderfamilies and they do not WANT to be rescued. If they are rescued in the stories, they grow inconsolable and pine away. When the Neanderchicks (almost always teenagers in the stories) go after sapiens young bucks, they are aiming to get pregnant. The females are always said to "go into heat" like animals and not like regular human beings.

Whether any of that is actually true probably remains to be demonstrated, and more than likely the stories are the result of normal human's prejudices about Wildmen. HOWEVER, the cannibalism part I DO NOT discount and in fact that part alone is what most witnesses are always said to be most frightened of. The cannibalism angle alone is probably enough reason not to discount the theory. The business about the eyes is baffling and so far as I know, Danny Vendramini is the first individual to draw attention to the special size and shape of Neanderthal eye sockets. I had noticed that before and so had others, but Danny has a reason why which is not only completely novel, it also answers the modern sightings in a satisfactory but unexpected way.

Quick comment on the black skin: dark skin is a trait that the first modern humans in Africa possessed, and was subsequently lost in Europe due to the different environment. One would expect a Neanderthal evolving in Europe to be the same way (light-skinned), while migrating modern humans would have dark skin. Thus, we should expect the reverse of what is specified in the theory -- DARK-SKINNED humans meeting LIGHT-SKINNED Neanderthals. So I agree that that part of the theory has more racial than biological undertones.

As far as the artistic presentation, only the artist knows why he did that; but I suspect the reason once again is that "We" have rights as human beings and "They" do not have any rights because they are animals

While Danny Vendramini's ideas are interesting it should be noted that he's not a scientist and doesn't hold any scientific credentials in the field he's theorizing about. Take it with a grain of salt.

Comments require approval because some comments are childish, irrelevant, poorly considered and often downright insulting. For instance, a John Baker just tried to add a comment that actual Science was the last thing anyone would see here. That remark was false, insulting and demeaning, and I stopped it in the approval process. But for the record, the Anonymous comment before the last one completely answers the statement about science and I need not bother with answering this John Baker myself.

True enough: but some scientists have been saying the same things as he says from before and some of the features are actually anatomically verifiable-the outsized eye sockets for example. And there is actually only one gene that turns on or turns of the furry coat of body hair, I hear.

Danny V admits to "not being a scientist". However technically once a theory is advanced as a scientific theory it IS "Science" and the person who advances the dea does not have to be a Scientist. By definition a "Scientist" is not necessarily anybody who casually advances any "Scientific" ideas but is a regular practitioner in the Scientific fields of endeavour: and there can easily be "Amateur scientists" who are casual practitioners without the certification and respect due accredited and professional scientists. But one-shots do not count even as "Amateurs" in most people's definitions.

And Blogger puts in the comment approval and Captcha automatically. Which is a good thing, actually: around here on Friday and Saturdays especially, we get some loud-mouthed drunks that try to put in meaningless and stupid arguments that I have to delete regularly. Plus which you get spam links trying to advertise pornographic sites or whatever, and if somebody reports your site for running porno links you've had it. Much better to be able to delete the bum postings than to lose your blog over them!

That is now an interesting proposition, exactly what is it that we have an innate fear of? The answer seems to be equivocal. If I were to go by what seems to me to follow the traditional material, the colour most associated with such creatures would seem to be RED (ie,"Redheaded")

I am confused, too #Tyler and #Dale. Based on research regarding the probable hair coloring (and likely skin coloring) of many Neanderthals, it appears that they are the source of the redhead's MC1R gene. See this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3311826/DNA-reveals-some-Neanderthals-were-ginger.html . If that's the case, Danny's portrayal of them as black skinned (like gorillas, he says, or Africans, some may say) appears very imaginative at best, racist at worst.

If Neanderthals came, as we believe, from northern Europe, then the lighter skin and hair combination is indeed more likely due to the low melanin levels they would require at that latitude. The often seen sightings of Sasquatch with reddish/brown hair and white (pale) soles of the feet, as well as the pale face and hands, would fit Danny's aesthetic much better. But maybe he's afraid of the scorn attached to the comparison to Sasquatch? Too bad I think he'll get a worse rap for his racially-loaded model he has right now with the dark face.

Actually, modern humans from northern areas ase not entirely lighter-coloured, they simply have a higher proportion of lighter-coloured individuals. There are still brunets in Northern populations. And you seem to have missed my last comment just before this one where I mentiond red hair is also prominently mentioned in the traditions

And personally I see this theory as evidence that some of the creatures classified with Bigfoot are of such a relationship. I personally make a distinction between Sasquatch and (Eastern) Bigfoot, and Tyler has recently put up a blog on that subject also. In this case there is a common phase of hairy manlike creatures at lower latitudes with darker colouring and smaller stature, and a phase that is both larger in stature and tending to have lighter colouration at higher latitudes. In Eastern USA, the predominant "Bigfoot" population seems to be the Canadian population come south, and then again some scattered populations of the smaller, darker, more common-Neanderthal types. And incidentally, the Neanderthals as a whole seem to have replenished from the Mediterranean area after the Northern-European population was depleted, the bottleneck supposedly accounting for the later genetic uniformity seen at about the time regular humans began to populate Europe. If the Northerner populations of Neanderthals were largely killed off during the more severe part of the Ice Age and then replenished by Southerner Neanderthalers, the Southern population would once again be darker than the population had been before that point. So there is that part going on, too.

Many have made the observation that the skull used for their reconstruction was missing nasal bones. It appears Neanderthal skulls had the type of nasal bones that would facilitate an protruding nose similar to humans.

Well, no: different skulls are used for reconstructions these days and many with more complete nasal bones than the type specimen used by M. Boule that you are talking about. Neanderthal noses were larger than human noses and the bones are peculiar that both the bones at the top and at the bottom of the nasal apeture stick straight out. That indicates a rather peculiar kind of nose with a high root and a short end rather than a big nose of human shape (a hooked nose) because the bones at the bottom of the opening don't indicate a nose which turns down at that point but rather one which turns up. (I had this conversation with Bernard Heuvelmans where he pointed that part out) So whatever was going on with their noses, it wasn't like what is going on with our noses. Neanderthal nasal cavities are huge, much larger than the corresponding part in human skulls.

I do agree that it is possible that Homo Neanderthalis would occasionally prey on modern humans, there is enough evidence to suggest that they did occasionally prey on each other. However what exactly is the current evidence to suggest that this was a frequent occourance. I am not off handedly discounting the possibility, just wondering if you could direct me to the evidence, Homo Sapien fossils found in known Neanderthal middens etc that atleast would be some incontrevertable evidence.

Also in the new reconstructions the enlarged eyes for acute night vision have vertical pupils. I am no primaeologist, just a humble Zoology grad but appart from a few pro-simmian families, Daubentonidae-Aye Aye, Tarsiidae-Tarsiers,Galagidae-Bush Babies and Lorisidae-Lorises and potto"s I can not recall any precedent for any higher primates (simiiformes) having such an addaptation. Even the most nocturnal genus of monkies that I can think of "Aotus" the South American owl monkeys have standard simian round pupils. I think this feature is possible in Neanderthal people but unlikely,epic artistry though.

I also thought that our normal human walking gait was established before our species ever became established in Europe, so how would it be possible for encounters with related hominid species to have any evolutionary effect on Homo Sapien gait, a feature synonimus with not only our species but our entire genus. This could possibly be quite a pivital theory in the understanding of Neandertal people and it would be appropriate if it was treated in a scientific mannor, with links to primary research and supporting works.

Actually it is a basic fact that ALL human fossils that are not buried by accident in flooding or natural disasters and prior to the recent practice of deliberate burials are based on finds that come out of middens. Several Neanderthal skeletons have bones that have cut marks on them made by stone blades and these are usually called "Butcher's marks" when they are found on the bones of other animals. Nearly all Neanberthal remains we have found show signs of these butcher marks, even if the remains otherwise show signs of deliberate burial, and the same marks are shown in most "Modern Homo sapiens" remains up until the establishment of a fully-modern Cromagnon Europe. However in most cases we can only infer who was doing the killing and eating from the stong tools involved:a lot of them are in fact the work of Neanderthals. But also the remains of earlier H. heidebergensis, Solo man, Pekin man and so on-nearly all of those were being killed and eathen presumably by their own kind: go back far enough and the Australopithecines were being eaten and dragged off to their lairs by big cats, but that was not the major cause of humans being killed and eaten more recently (say within the past million years)

I have just deleted another Anonymous posting to this blogwhich was taking a disrespectful and high-handed tone in an attempt to put down the author cited here. I am adding this note to confirm that I reserve the right to delete any anonymous comment simply on the grounds that it IS an anonymous comment and that taking a disrespectful and insulting attitude will get the comment submitter nowhee. At the same time this blog welcomes any and all comments either for or against a posting equally, so long as the posting is not being made in a hostile and abusive manner.

I do so wonder what it would have been like for light-skinned red headed Neanderthals to gaze upon lanky by comparison Afro-Centric Sapiens. Our species do tend to shun the different and the new, but the kids of the generation whom shuns tends to be overly curious and romanced by the same things that were shunned.

Neanderthal Genes run as high as 4% in Sapiens genome. For Neanderthal genes to remain in our genome after 27,000+ years, after all of our genocide, and wars, and cataclysms that must mean it was selective breeding that helped us keep those genes. All non-African Humans minus African Americans of the North and South of the Americas, and any case of African people whom never had interracial relationships with anyone; Essentially out of 7 Billion Humans, Less than 900million on Earth do not have Neanderthal genes. Homo Sapiens are a highly curious and sexual species, yet it is theorized that Neanderthal was highly xenophobic and dogmatic about their lifestyles. Makes you wonder why the world has a history of racism or any thing of that caliber. Thus the answer IS "Them and Us" Us being the last remaining Neanderthals whom enslaved the last Pure Homo Sapiens. Lol but I embellish greatly.

You rather surprise me with your estimate of 4% of modern human populations with Neanderthal genes since some estimates run as high as 12% or higher. Part of the problem there is that the comparison is with the peculiarly European Neanderthals without regard for the fact that Neanderthal genetics also varied with age and geographic location. So its a lot more complex of a proposition than it might seem at first.

Hi Mr. Drinnon, I love your work! I just wanted to share my blog, the Bizarre Zoology Blog, with you if you are interested. One of my posts, called My Hairy Neanderthal Theory, deals with my theory regarding Neanderthal anatomy. The blog adress is www.bizarrezoology.blogspot.com if you are interested! Have a nice day!

That would be unusual, especially since I have already reserved the use of the blog "Bizzarezoology" for my own use and there were no other blogs by that name at that time (nor could there be any more after I registered the name)

There are many things wrong with this reconstruction:1. Neanderthals had projecting---not flat and apelike--noses.2. They probably had light skin nand light hair.3. The Neanderthal face did not project very much in the mouth region; rather, it looked like the whole face was pulled forward from the bridge of the nose down.4. There is no evidence they were any hairier than living people. Red orchre has been found in Neanderthal burials--yes, the buried their dead--and may have been used as body paint, which would rule out hairyness.5. There is no evidence that they were nocturnal.

The whole reconstruction is a hatchet job, and even worse than MarcelBoule's reconstructions.

Well now Daniel, let us take your points:1) the "Flatness" of the nose is not what the problem is, but actually the angle of the bottom part where the nostrils is. It is entirely possible this was rotated such that the nostrils were viewed head-on, no matter HOW the bridge of the nose comes out. This was something which Bernard Heuvelmans said in a discussion on the matter and he pointed out that the spine at the base of the nasal opening on the skull points nearly vertically in the Neandethal skkull, which is why you see these reconstuctions with the nostrils facing freward in the first place. There is an actual anatomical reason for it.2. I will grant you that. They could also be sunburnt very dark from running around outdoors most of the time. They would also be lighter in the North. BUT the MOST of them would be darker in hair and skin colouration, even as it is so in modern Europeans.3.If the whole lower face projected, it projected, whether this was in association with the nose or not. In this case we are discussing what the eyewitnesses' impressions would be and not the anatomical cause of it.4. There is equivocal evidence for body hairiness and basically it is a mooit question in a fossil form at any time. But since you have no idea HOW the red ochre was used (We have examples where it was rubbed on artifacts), your argument has no strength.5.The enlarged eye sockets can be taken as evidence they were nocturnal and this is exactly what the scenario states. The eye sockets of a Neanderthal ARE very large absolutely when compared to modern humans and all of their sense organs seem to have been more developed more than modern humans.

In short you have carried through with none of your arguments. I will concede that the "Them or us" scenario is probably wrong on several points. But it cannot be stated that it is necessarily entirely wrong or that it has been disproven. You have no single item of firm disproof that you can point to so far.

I go with the burly bearded dwarf look and I think the cro-mag in the the comparison picture is a hybrid of sapiens and neanderthal. A naked neanderthalmust have been a rare sight as it is impossible..I repeat IMPOSSIBLE to live in ice age conditions without knowing how to sew together a blizzard suit to protect your body from extreme temperatures. This would almost put neanderthal technology on par with Inuit/Eskimos at a time when Homo Sapiens were still naked savages and Homo Erectus still lived in the jungles. Neanderthals were an ELDER race not wookies - this Vendramini guy is selling science fiction.

I think the issue here, as to why this is being so hard to accept, is that most people want to believe that potential ancestors are how we believe ourselves to be, and that they could not possibly behave how we, as a species, really are. A look at crime clocks within various countries would show that we're not so far off from those behaviors (sans cannibalism - hopefully).

While the article explains how we potentially have gotten some positive behaviors, I think it would also explain a great deal of negative behaviors as well. It's great food for thought at the very least.

A lot of people are assuming racist motivations for the depiction of Neanderthals as black skinned.This doesn't appear to be supported by the picture which surely shows leathery skin ike a chimp or gorilla.I think people are becoming so hyper sensitive to racism they see it even when it is not there.If neanderthal was hairy all over though, then skin colour seems to be moot because a white skinned face by itself is not likely to make much of a difference vis a vis vitamin d production.In addition if Neanderthals were nocturnal again there would be no reason to assume an advantage in white skin, obviously the opposite is true.A very interesting theory which in my mind emphasises the idea that verbal argument alone leaves a great deal of room for competing hypotheses which are not easily demonstrable as false. Presumably more understanding of the DNA data could give the answer to the hairyness and skin colour questions?

I do think their was a lot of competition, for food and resources in the northern European areas. We do know from remains left by Neanderthals that they were built for the extreme weather of the ice age. The comparison of the fractures the arms and fingers and other parts of the body with todays modern rodeo cowboys show that they did hunt game. The fact that weapons have been found embedded in skeletal remains lends to support that their was warfare between the two races. If you look at any culture in the world past and present, their has always been race issues any group of peoples believe that they are the first people and they are superior in all ways. Cannibalism I think happened on both sides it was a harsh ice and snow covered world filled with hardships and an easy meal would not be passed up. Homo sapiens were guilty of this practice and in some cultures it was perfectly acceptable up in to the 1950's. I do think that their was a diversity of skin tones and air color as is today in different regains of the globe. I do not think the Neanderthals a dim witted slow creature or they would not have survived so long. Interbreeding yes, I believe so with all of the papers released on the subject and all of the DNA studies completed with such different results could our species interbreed with the Neanderthals some say yes others no, I would like to say yes they were able to. But that is my own personal feeling most of the Professors I had in College were of the opinion no they could not, that they were two different species. You do not see Apes and Chimpanzee's inter breading. Yes we have built in fears hard wired in to our physiology our primitive minds. We do not like the dark and we share stories of great floods and of monsters, evil sprits that inhabit the night. Every culture has their own versions of the stories. We hear of big harry men roaming the sparsely inhabited areas of the world and depending on where you travel these creatures are either timid or curious some are vicious flesh eating giant harry men.Neanderthals probably had more hair than modern man but not as harry as a Chimpanzees, their has been proof that they would ware clothing to keep warm and had weapons to kill game and to defend themselves with they had family groups and cared for their injured and sick, elderly community members. All of that has been documented by several sources, Perhaps they started out darker and harrier could very well be but as with everything on earth they evolved to survive in the climate of the ice age they depended on each other to survive, and maybe when small bands came together with the others a truce was in effect so that they could all survive and it would be inevitable when two peoples came together their was inter breeding a woman looses a mate needs protection and meat, or a man need a woman to do the gathering sewing and maybe child raising if his mate passed I could see the two of them forming a bond even if it is made of convenience. Or perhaps it could have been arranged by the leaders of the two different peoples. You could be right a blood thirsty, raping cannibalistic Neanderthals could have existed. But I have never heard of a Great Ape raping a woman wouldn't it be the equivalent?

Elves- depending on the version they're either Homo Floriensis or interdimensional deceivers.

Some people can't come at this sort of idea but I am one of those weird people who think our ancestors were neither liars nor knaves and that generally what they handed down as folklore and oral history tends to be accurate within certain limits.

I have already stated that I don't think all of the theory is equally well grounded and that I do not follow all of the interpretations. However That is NOT to say what you have just said: there is indeed good physical anatomical evidence which support SOME of the claims. Please refer to the discussion above, where several of these points are addressed. And unfortunately you have not chosen to make a reasoned argument, you give an emotional response and blanket denial WITHOUT addressing any of the evidence as stated above.

The claim is often made that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but the people that sy that are mouthing a motto without thinking about what they are saying. This is merely rhetoric. In science the idea that 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' DOES NOT HOLD. Instead ANY evidence still counts as evidence, and the debate is then thereafter whether the evidence is consistent with the other previously-accepted evidence as already stated or not.

The real problem is how intelligent were the Neanderthals. How old is the crossbow would you as a human what to be a target of a Neanderthal welding such a weapon. We know how dishonest the scientific community is I figure the amount of Neanderthal genes in the human gene pool is much greater than they are wont to admit to and we are only now finding out officially that humans breed with other hominids who knows what other genic surprises await us in the future.

This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.

Popular Posts

In order to be fair and have more choices, there are now two Popular Posts lists: the first one is for the last 30 days and the second one is for all-time favorites. Some posts may appear on both lists temporarily.

Associated Sites

Disclaimer

In Accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, any copyright material on display here is under Fair Use without any claim of ownership or any profit accrued by the display. The Material herein is for non-profit educational or criticism puposes only. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 106 and 106a, the fair use of a copyrighted work including reproduction and distribution of said material as specified in that section, for purposes of education, news reporting, commentary or criticism, scholarship or research, to persons who have expressed a prior interest in receiving such material for such purposes, is NOT an infringement.